What happened
After repeated consultations for chest pain, the plaintiff suffered a myocardial infarction and severe cardiac damage, followed by a heart transplant in 2005. The transplant improved his condition but left fatigue, restrictions and medication effects that prevented a return to his trucking business. The business's earnings also had to be assessed in light of his wife's bookkeeping and administrative contribution.
The issues
The disputed questions concerned life expectancy, the proper business earnings and expenses, whether to deduct the wife's contribution, and the likely duration of work. This was a damages assessment: the defendant had already admitted liability.
The court's decision
The Court adopted a remaining life expectancy of 12.5 years using local transplant data and the treating specialist's evidence, without a further discount for risks already captured in that data. It did not deduct the wife's bookkeeping contribution because it had no independent earning value without the business generated by the plaintiff's work. It nevertheless allowed for reduced work after age 67 and applied the agreed compensation and interim-payment deductions.
Understanding the figures
Historical gross damages were AUD 1,394,923.87. Deducting AUD 538,828.08 paid or payable to GIO and the AUD 80,000 interim payment left judgment of AUD 776,095.79. The gross figure includes AUD 32,106 interest on past economic loss; costs were dealt with separately, and the schedule includes a Medicare repayment, so the judgment is not a statement of disposable cash received.
What this case shows
The assessment turned on choosing survival data suited to the patient and considering his actual follow-up care. It also illustrates why income splitting and a spouse's assistance in a family business do not automatically determine the injured person's lost earning capacity.
Why another case may differ
The 12.5-year estimate was a finding on this plaintiff's 2009 evidence, not a present-day prognosis for transplant recipients. Avoiding a further life-expectancy deduction did not prevent contingencies being applied to earnings. The gross assessment also included compensation-related amounts and cannot be read as additional cash received.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →